Don't Clap For This Guy- Or Believe Him

"Over the last week," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement (transcript here), "we have seen reckless disclosures of intelligence community measures used to keep Americans safe. " He added that "the surveillance activities" revealed "are lawful and conducted under authorities widely known and discussed, and fully debated and authorized by Congress."

Clapper did not explain how activities which are denied by the Executive branch can be "fully debated" by Congress.  In March, this exchange between Clapper and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) transpired in a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

Wyden: "And this is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer, because I know Sen. Feinstein wants to move on.

"Last summer the NSA director was at a conference and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, '... the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.'

"The reason I'm asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don't really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

Clapper: "No, sir."

Wyden: "It does not."

Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

Wyden: "All right. Thank you. I'll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer."

Clapper was confronted on Sunday by Mrs. Alan Greenspan about his apparent departure from objective reality:

ANDREA MITCHELL: Senator Wyden made quite a lot out of your exchange with him last March during the hearings. Can you explain what you meant when you said that there was not data collection on millions of Americans?

JAMES CLAPPER: First-- as I said, I have great respect for Senator Wyden. I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked-- "When are you going to start-- stop beating your wife" kind of question, which is meaning not-- answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no. And again, to go back to my metaphor. What I was thinking of is looking at the Dewey Decimal numbers-- of those books in that metaphorical library-- to me, collection of U.S. persons' data would mean taking the book off the shelf and opening it up and reading it.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Taking the contents?

JAMES CLAPPER: Exactly. That's what I meant. Now--

ANDREA MITCHELL: You did not mean archiving the telephone numbers? 

JAMES CLAPPER: No.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Let me ask you about the content--

JAMES CLAPPER: And this has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too-- too cute by half. But it is-- there are honest differences on the semantics of what-- when someone says "collection" to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him.

No, "collection" has the same meaning to Clapper as it does to Wyden, which would include "obtain" or "acquire."  That's the only reasonable conclusion, given that Clapper added "There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect" data.  If "collect" did not describe the means by which the NSA gained its data, there would be no chance to obtain/acquire it "inadvertently."

That's a little convoluted, but a diplomatic, perhaps passive/aggressive, way of stating:  James Clapper lied.   Perhaps when he was selected by Obama, the President had no way of knowing what kind of fellow he was getting.  Oh, wait- he did.   On October 29, 2003 Douglas Jehl reported in The New York Times

The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq's illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war.

The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material ''unquestionably'' had been moved out of Iraq.

''I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,'' General Clapper, who leads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said at a breakfast with reporters.

He said he was providing a personal assessment. But he said ''the obvious conclusion one draws'' was that there ''may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq, and unquestionably, I am sure, material.'' A spokesman for General Clapper's agency, David Burpee, said he could not provide further evidence to support the general's statement.

And so the credibility of the United States government takes another hit.  Way to go, Obamie.



Share |

What's She Going To Do?

Soon after Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell either came up with a great scoop utilizing her sources- or was suckered. As many of us heard live and thinkprogress.org reports here, Mitchell maintained

Talking to people who are very close to Sarah Palin, I have been told that she has told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels like she has to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital and she really does not want to run for higher office. This is not the case where she is stepping down in order to figure the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012.

This runs counter to what most others are predicting. Veteran Republican fundraiser and Palin adviser Fred Malek told Rick Klein of ABC that the Governor is not precluding a return to politics and

She’s not going to go hide in a cave. She’ll continue to be a major friend and force for Republican figures in this country.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote definitively

I have covered politics for a long time. I can tell when someone is running for president. Sarah Palin is running for president.

Ed Schultz of MSNBC, arguing that Palin has decided to run, insightfully referred to this passage in the Governor's speech

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that...

A response of "hell yeah!" (ain't she folksy?) is not elicited by asking one's loved ones "should I resign as governor so I can spend more time with you?" or even "should I resign so you and I can travel around the country while I work for the election of other conservative politicians?" It might, though, be the response to "how about if I drop everything so we have a chance to go live in that big white house in Washington surrounded by good-looking bodyguards and servants?" And if that sounds superficial, why is she (allegedly) relying on her children's advice? And who are we dealing with, anyway?

A few people in the media have contended that because Sarah Palin cares so much for her family and is such a good mother, that perhaps she wouldn't do anything, such as a run for national office, which would detract from the time she can spend with her children. But consider this possibility: Palin already has decided to go for the top job, or at least to build up iou's she can cash in later if she wishes; given that, which affords her more time to spend with her family- functioning as governor or not?

Maybe Sarah Palin has decided against a run for the presidency. But if so, given the evidence and educated opinion to the contrary, Andrea Mitchell deserves to be considered one of the finest correspondents of our time.

Actionable

Senator Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) was interviewed shortly after 1:00 p.m. this afternoon by Mrs. Alan Greenspan on MSNBC about, primarily, the bonuses American International Group has given to many of its executives. There has been a confident, almost blithe assumption on the part of some government officials (such as chairman of the White House Economic Council, Larry Summers) and that the government cannot recoup any part of the bonuses- a contract is a contract, period.

Many of us who are not lawyers suspected this is an overly simplistic, even fatuous, argument. And so, we now know, does Specter, former District Attorney of Philadelphia and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. While acknowledging it as an extreme example, he likened it to a contract for distribution of marijuana- hardly enforceable, as he emphasized. (A contract signed for proceeds of a winning, illegal bet, I would expect, also would not be enforceable.) Although Specter did not note it, contracts also are open to interpretation, and the letter from Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Edward M. Liddy (any relation to G. Gordon?) to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did nothing to dispel the notion that AIG was not contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. At the very least, the Justice Department could file suit to try to recoup the bonuses. As Specter concluded, "stop all the talk; go to court; they're unenforceable."

Nominations By Gender

Caught by an open microphone at the National Governors Association conference in Philadelphia, host Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania commented in a private conversation of Barack Obama's designee for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano:

Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it.

This aroused the ire of CNN anchorwoman Campbell Brown, who delivered a commentary criticizing Rendell's remarks. Credit Brown with sticking to the issues and not succumbing to personal attack. Credit Rendell with believing that a man or a woman holding a Cabinet position in the United States government should be encouraged to work long hours for the public good. Meanwhile, Ms. Brown raised three concerns:

1. If a man had been Obama's choice for the job, would having a family or not having a family ever even have been an issue? Would it have ever prompted a comment? Probably not. We all know the assumption tends to be that with a man, there is almost always a wife in the wings managing those family concerns.

2. As a woman, hearing this, it is hard not to wonder if we are counted out for certain jobs, certain opportunities, because we do have a family or because we are in our child-bearing years. Are we? It is a fair question.

3. If you are a childless, single woman with suspicions that you get stuck working holidays, weekends and the more burdensome shifts more often than your colleagues with families, are those suspicions well-founded? Probably so. Is there an assumption that if you're family-free then you have no life? By some, yes.

Brown's most valid point is the first, in which she finds unfair the double standard that prompts concern when a woman entering a high-profile job has children but none for a man in a similar position. The assumption, however, "that with a man, there is almost always a wife in the wings managing those family concerns," while arguably inconvenient, unfair, or socially dysfunctional, is nevertheless well founded. And if Brown believes that the wife should not "be in the wings managing those family concerns," she ought to say so. She would deserve applause for the courage and wisdom to suggest that the American practice of the wife pursuing an ambitious career while assiduously committed to, and attending to the affairs of, the family is harmful to the family unit (if not a woman's health).

Her second and third arguments are slightly confusing and possibly contradictory. Brown cannot, or should not be allowed to, have it both ways: in the world of oppression she posits, the married woman gets the shaft- but the single woman is encouraged to sacrifice for the organization, and presumably pave the way for her advancement. Implying that both women face largely impenetrable obstacles to professional success is, generously speaking, disingenuous.

Campbell Brown does, however, avoid referring to Governor Rendell, or his remarks, as "sexist." And she avoids suggesting that women should be given priority in assignment to Cabinet positions simply on the basis of the inherited characteristic of gender. Not so, though, the MSNBC anchorwoman Andrea Mitchell. On Wednesday afternoon, in a discussion with fellow anchorwoman Nora O'Donnell, Mrs. Alan Greenspan (far be it for me to sink to the level of personal attack) remarked of the incoming Obama administration, with a straight face, "they are creating a mosaic but they are not self-consciously creating that mosaic."

What an exemplary example of the right wing's charge that the mainstream media is having a love affair with former Senator Obama! Not only is a mosaic being created but, better yet, the President-elect is doing it with self-effacement and admirable modesty.

Mitchell's enthusiasm for the creation of a mosaic betrays a lack of interest in whether Barack Obama's appointments are wise, the individuals best able to serve the national interest in the positions for which they are being nominated. Campbell Brown's concerns, however inartfully expressed (as are mine here, apparently) and inexact, reflect a belief that, ultimately, individuals should not be precluded from service because of gender or, presumably, race.



<

The McCain Edge At Saddleback

So now we know why John McCain was decisive, forceful, and quick on his feet when he appeared with Reverend Rick Warren at the latter's Saddleback Church in Orange County, California on August 16, 2008. At the beginning of the forum, Reverend Warren assured us:

So you can compare apples to apples. Now, Senator Obama is going to go first. We flipped a coin, and we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence.

And once McCain did appear:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you. Good to be here.
WARREN: My first question, was the cone of silence comfortable you were in just now?
MCCAIN: I was trying to hear through the wall.

Very cute. And very dishonest. Pretending to be enraged at NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell's report that the Obama campaign was saying that McCain had broken the rules, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis argued the candidate "was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed.” Inadvertently, Davis had acknowledged that the Repub candidate had not been in a cone of silence, but rather first in a motorcade (where the broadcast could have been communicated to him in any number of ways) and then in a room "with no broadcast feed," where nonetheless content of the broadcast could have been communicated to him in any number of ways.

Appearing on Larry King Live on Monday night, 8/18/08, Reverend Warren was asked "could McCain have heard it (the Obama interview) in the car coming over?" and incredibly replied "not a chance- the Secret Service would have reported it."

Which claim of Warren was less sincere a) that McCain was in "a cone of silence" he either knew he wasn't in or at least could not be certain that he was; or b) claiming that the Secret Service, mistaking its role for that of a babysitter, would have "ratted out" the guy who could be the next President of the United States and leader of the Free World? That's a tough call.

Almost Accurate

I don't have a grudge against Andrea Mitchell, wife of overrrated former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. But one would think Ms. Mitchell would know better, as she did in her usual 1:00 p.m. role hosting on MSNBC, than to speak approvingly on July 7 of Barack Obama's "judgement in voting against the war."

I think A.M. meant "judgement in opposing the war," as Obama demonstrated when he gave a speech as an Illinois state senator. He never had a chance to vote on the bill authorizing military action. Fortunately.

Almost First

Today is Monday, July 7, 2008 on the set of MSNBC's "Morning Joe." It is the end of a segment with co-hosts Andrea Mitchell, Willie Geist, and the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart about the Democratic National Convention in which they discussed (not-yet announced) plans for Barack Obama to give his acceptance speech at Invesco Field (which holds approximately 75,000 people) in Denver. Mitchell says (in the half hour between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eastern):

"We broke it here first."

Not quite, Andrea. This would be Markos Moulitsas posting on his famous Daily Kos blog on July 3, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. Eastern time:


Obama acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium?
by kos
Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM PDT
There was talk about Dems shortening the convention to three days, but now, talk is about doing "something different" on the last night. Could it be this?

What better place to accept the nomination for the most powerful job in the world? Invesco Field at Mile High, the home of the Denver Broncos, can seat 75,000 people. It's just a short walk under I-25 from the Pepsi Center and would be a part of the rumored one-mile square radius security zone.

DenConWatch has heard rumors to this effect as far back as March 2006.

Denver's bid would put most of the convention action at the Pepsi Center, with the final night at Invesco Field.

I am very suprised by that last one. Having the convention in two separate places makes the logistics much harder. You have to build all the infrastructure twice: podium, floor seating, and media facilities. I can't imagine the media will be happy about having to pay for two sets of anchorbooths, wiring, etc. Security is also a nightmare. You have to setup the whole security infrastructure in two separate places. Not to mention the security checkpoint system gets used and worked out the first 2 days, before the big days of Wednesday and Thursday. If you have the final night in a completely new place, it seems to me you're asking for trouble.

And:

However, a source has told me that Dean has been dropping hints that he would like some sort of "public event" to close the convention week, which could, logically, be the nominee acceptance speech. (It could also just be a big rally the next day).

In 2004, I learned about a little trick apparently done at all conventions -- a group would walk in, a single person would collect all their passes, go outside, and bring a new group of people. Lather, rinse, repeat. There were likely three times as many people inside the convention hall for Kerry's speech than at any other time.

So why restrict Obama's historic acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream" speech to the convention delegates and whoever they can smuggle in? Open that puppy up.


But MSNBC- and Mitchell- were among the first!

Almost Over, Apparently

Campaigning on 5/14/08 in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton scolded the nation's two top Repubs for opposing a farm bill passed by Congress and which the President vows to veto. "When Bear Stearns needed assistance, she declared, "we stepped in with a $30 billion package," Clinton said. "But when our farmers need help, all they get from Senator McCain and President Bush is a veto threat." And the New York senator charged that Mr. Bush's effort to equate opponents of his foreign policy ( (taken as a shot at Senator Obama) with Neville Chamberlain was "offensive and outrageous, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy."

The following morning, NBC's Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" commented "for the first time now, her [Hillary] people, her closest aides, are saying, ‘she knows the reality, we know the reality.’ They’re acknowledging that she’s not going to win this―that she is really just going through the motions. And that’s a big change.”

It appears that Mrs. Clinton has transitioned into the post-primary, pre-convention strategy critics of hers have been demanding. No need to drop out, they say, merely refreain from criticizing the front-runner. (Note to Denver Broncos, Seattle Seahawks, Green Bay Packers, or others: If you're 12 points behind late in the fourth quarter, give up.) She may have altered her approach for reasons of altruism; for maintaining viability as a credible candidate for a Democratic Presidential nomination in 2012 or 2016; or to negotiate for assistance in retiring her considerable campaign debt, for leadership in the Senate on a health-care bill in an Obama administration, and/or for selection as the Vice Presidential nominee. Her more congenial tone, whatever the motive(s), doubtless comes as a relief to the Obama camp, which may later wax nostalgic about this campaign when it finds a general election campaign far more vicious than anything they've encountered from a fellow Democrat reluctant to alienate core Democratic voters.

The Republican Media- No. 16

Thanks go out to Republican strategist Alex Castellanos and Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent of NBC News.

Two days after I reprinted the 1999 article in slate.com by Timothy Noah which described the Republican effort to tar Al Gore with responsibility for the Willie Horton hit job in the 2000 election, along comes Castellanos practically bragging how the GOP is going to replay this tactic in 2008, immediately followed by McCain enthusiast Andrea Mitchell reminding us how routine bias toward the Republican Party is.

Here are the two comments from the April 27, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Alex Castellanos, the Republican strategist, was on TV the other night and said this: "Clinton's running the ads Republicans would love to be running so--now, so we don't have to because Hillary Clinton is doing it. Yes, it could--would be hard for a Republican to run an ad with Osama bin Laden in it. Not so much now because Hillary has already done it against Obama.

"It would be difficult for a Republican to run an ad questioning does Barack Obama have the strength of character to lead the country. Well, not so much now because Hillary has already done it."

Is that a Republican sort of protecting his flank, getting ready for a rollout, or has Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama paved the way for McCain if Obama becomes the nominee?

MS. MITCHELL: She's written the playbook for John McCain. They've done all the opposition research. I think that Obama has also had some self-inflicted wounds, notably in San Francisco, the bitter comment, which just didn't play right, and I--you know, obviously I don't think he's handled Jeremiah Wright, we can talk about that. I don't think he anticipated the impact of that and the way it would be perceived out of context or in context. But Hillary Clinton has laid out a road map for the Republicans, and that is one of the Obama arguments. The Obama supporters are arguing that she is destroying him, even if he is the nominee, and he is the presumptive nominee and the front-runner, certainly

Note Castellanos claiming "It would be difficult for a Republican to run an ad questioning does Barack Obama have the strength of character to lead the country. Well, not so much now because Hillary has already done it."

Not true. Hillary Clinton's 3:00 a.m. foreign policy ad (courtesy of The Huffington Post) and her more recent buy with images of Franklin Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor, Castro, gas prices, and, yes, bin Laden emphasize her credentials for handling a crisis. They do not criticize or demean Barack Obama in any way, but merely suggest that she is the candidate best able (and I use "best" rather than "better" because it is not a direct comparison with her current rival) to handle an emergency. Disagree with her on that point if you choose, but paranoia about either ad is neither attractive nor flattering to the frontrunner, merely indicating a naivete that it the spot is somehow beyond the pale. However, it is not surprising that a Repub consultant has spilled the beans, revealing that the GOP this autumn intends to do a "Willie Horton"- run a venomous campaign and blame it on Democrats.

Similarly, Andrea Mitchell, wife of one of the most important Republicans, Allan Greenspan, of the last 20 years. She now has said of Hillary Clinton "she's written the playbook for John McCain. They've done all the opposition research." Fortunately, we have a Weekly Standard blogger ("fortunately" the Weekly Standard- something I'm not used to typing) quoting John McCain on a conference call as claiming

All I can tell you, Jennifer, is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

Did Mrs. Clinton run an ad I missed about Danie Ortega and Hamas, linking them to Barack Obama? No, but that doesn't stop Mitchell from claiming "she's written the playbook for John McCain."

And "they've done all the opposition research?" Did Senator Clinton force Senator Obama to refer on the first of his two interviews with WIP Radio in Philadelphia to his maternal grandmother as "a typical white person?" Did Senator Clinton infiltrate that meeting with campaign donors and insinuate Senator Obama into contending that small town Americans "cling" to their guns and religion? Has Senator Clinton been asking the silly question about why Senator Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin? Was it Senator Clinton or George Stephanopoulos who asked Senator Obama about William Ayers- or whether Obama's former pastor "love(s) America as much as you do"? And was it Senator Clinton who dug up video of Reverend Wright- which would be a huge surprise to conservative Repub talk show host Sean Hannity who claims to have uncovered the Wright story first?

No, Andrea, Hillary Clinton isn't laying out the road map for the Grand Old Party. But you seem to be trying to.

Saint John

"Sometimes I think McCain knows too much and doesn't know how to do sound bites."

-Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC on 3/31/08, explaining Senator McCain's acceptance of the possibility of leaving American troops in Iraq for 100 years

Some reflections on comments made by MSNBC (on their bi-weekly Super Tuesday) pertaining to the July 20, 2007 Democratic debate at the Citadel:

Charlie Cook of Cook Political Report said that it's easy to overrate the importance of any of these debates, that one way of viewing a debate is whether it upset the order of the race. It did not, as he pointed out. And as to the importance of the debates: the most searing memory I have of the GOP debates thus far is Senator McCain, more than once, forcefully defending the war in Iraq. He's wrong on the issue, of course, but he appeared confident, committed, and principled. And he has sunk like a rock.

Patrick Buchanan argued that the fellow from Michigan who brandished his rifle and referred to it as his "baby" represented real Americans that Democrats have to appeal to. No, Pat. Democrats have to appeal to gun owners and to those NRA members (not synonymous)for whom gun control is not their primary concern. But most of these would refer to a gun as their "baby," and they will not vote Democratic anyway. For the vast majority of Americans, some other issue such as national security, fear of terrorism, high taxation, immigration/illegal immigration, mediocre education, inadequate health care, or Social Security ranks higher. If registering your weapon, or not being able to obtain one if you're mentally ill (well, in some states), is your primary concern in life, you either should be congratulated for living a blessed, secure and sheltered life- or you're a criminal.

Host for the hour Andrea Mitchell and journalist Eugene Robinson agreed that John Edwards should not have criticized Hillary Clinton's jacket when, toward the end of the debate, each candidate was asked to say something he/she liked and disliked about the candidate to his/her left. They disapproved of a male candidate being negative about the clothing as, Mitchell put it, the only female candidate. But the former North Carolina Senator was obviously merely trying not to take too seriously a question which should not have been taken seriously. (In fact, Joe Biden would term it a "ridiculous exercise.") And Edwards was not asked to comment on anyone else. We may be on the verge of "making history" (as Senator Clinton and her supporters are not shy in emphasizing), but we still must be condescending toward women, treating them differently, more deferentially, than men. Or at least that's the way Andrea Mitchell and some who consider others to be sexist would have it.